Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: MagicWand67
so you are just providing an information service to people ? Fair enough - and entirely commendable. Thank you.

I have seen some of those papers, and others look much like others I recall - and they are precisely why I think the whole "we're being sprayed like
bugs", "chemtrails" and "geoengineering is destroying the planet" stories are complete nonsense - the atmosphere is being measured by so many
different organisations, from all around the world, in so many more and more advanced ways..........and nothing to support these myths or anything
like them is being found.

While I agree many of the claims made are exaggerated and unproven they do have an ounce of truth to them.

If or when SRM tests take place there would be adverse side effects for humanity.

Listen to what David Keith says about it on the Colbert Report.

Chaff (unrelated to chemtrails) is also a health concern IMO. The USAF uses about 500 tons of it every year. That is a very significant amount
considering how many years they have been using it. And while this report says no adverse environmental or health effects have been directly
attributed to chaff. I find that very hard to believe.

Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from
its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions (USAF 2001).

Training for military personnel, particularly aircraft pilots, in the use of chaff is necessary to deploy this electronic countermeasure effectively.
As with most acquired skills, the deployment of chaff must be maintained by practicing in-flight release during training.

It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year (USAF 2001), with most chaff being released during training
exercises within the continental United States.

Concerns have been raised since the early 1950s by both the public and government officials on the potential impacts of chaff on the environment. In
response to these concerns, the Department of Defense (DOD) has sponsored or conducted research to address issues related to the use of chaff by the
military including: (a) questions on its persistence and fate in the environment, (b) the effects of chaff on human, livestock, and wildlife health,
and (c) the impact of chaff release on natural and cultural resources

Oh the many smaller pieces and how it all may impact the whole world we see in the end.

I had no idea they were using 500 (ahem) TONS of it, per year. I read the whole report and it sets me back a bit to read further, this is a period
(with the above number in weight) of serious restrictions and limitations on the use of Chaff over the continental United States. The amount now, as
compared to times past. Oh and they make sure it's used high altitude for maximum dispersion. It actually does say that, with the logic being to
avoid concentration over areas. ....but it's harmless. Of course.

It's very notable to point out they say in more than one place, the stuff is robust and doesn't break down easily. In some ways presenting as
a benefit, since the whole fibers aren't known in listed examples of testing to be health hazards but they seemed uncertain about partially degraded
ones. (they were contact irritants to eyes and sinuses tho ..Hmm..)

So it was I saw this doozy... (remember of course, 500 tons over the US a year, in what they call restricted conditions. at up to 100 million fibers a
charge, by 8lb charges at a time...and the date makes all this during peace time)

Chaff fibers are approximately 60% glass and 40% aluminum by weight. Lead was used as a weighting material in early versions, but this metal is no
longer incorporated into chaff (GAO 1998, USAF 1997). Chaff fibers are also coated with a lipid to prevent clumping.

Well, golly, lemmie put down ma banjo a minoot, and I can thank Unkle Samy for nots usin da lead in those pesky fibres anymur. Uf Curse, I sur wish
they wouldn't stay 4ever in the envirenmont. Us in dem dar 26 states still been used and aboosed will manage sumhow tho!

Where's that report on ADHD. Dementia and rising levels of developmental issues over a few decades now?

The amount of lead in 500 tons of chaff would have paled to insignificance next to the amount of lead in gas over a year - it was an inconsequential
pollutant IMO, and hitting on it is just more scaremongering.

ETA: And also nothing to do with geoengineering, SRM, or even chemtrails!!

originally posted by: MagicWand67
Chaff (unrelated to chemtrails) is also a health concern IMO.

There is some question about whether the aluminum deposited through chaffing exercises is toxic. A research survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in 2005, prompted by concerns about the potential for impact of chaff upon endangered pronghorn antelopes, noted the existence of studies that
concluded that chaff containing aluminum would not be harmful to either humans or animals: “Although there is potential for inhalation hazard to
wildlife, two reports found that the risk is negligible. A study in the United Kingdom found that chaff particle size was too large for inhalation in
humans and livestock (USAF 1997). Therefore, chaff is considered too large to be respired. When broken down, chaff would not cause adverse effects to
terrestrial wildlife because aluminum and silicon are not very toxic when inhaled (NRL 1999).” The survey also noted a 1999 study of a worst case
scenario at a military base in Nevada where chaffing exercises had been frequently run. That study, by the Naval Research Laboratory, “concluded
that the deposition of chaff did not result in the accumulation of toxic substances in soils and that inhalation and ingestion exposure to domestic
livestock and non-domestic grazers was not a concern due to the large size of chaff fibers, and because ingestion of unreasonably large amounts of
chaff would be required to produce toxic effects.” Conducting its own worst-case scenario research, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that
“Sonoran pronghorn are not likely to be at risk from aluminum toxicity at BMGR due to chaff releases.”

I would like to revisit this paper one more time. Which describes the timeline in which certain details of research of SRM are broken down into 5
phases. I want to focus on the first 2 phases because I do not think we have reached phase 3 yet.

This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise
within five years.

Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary
research and technical development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale testing of SRM, to include funding
requirements.

The ideal leader of this consortium would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his colleagues), and would include
institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry, as well
as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted by climate scientists today.

Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a specific
objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and
regulate the use of SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5
million estimated).

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing scales to verify any remaining questions and
development of revised implementation plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months). Phase III: Review research
results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It
would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18 months).

Now if we look at the details of phase 1 and based on all the available info and studies. I think that Phase 1's goals have been accomplished. A few
times over even.

So long as modest low-level field studies designed to answer these questions are done in an open and transparent manner, we believe they should
not be subject to any formal international process of vetting and approval. Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or
send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.

A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about
SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible. Such a regulation would, at best, make conducting
modest low-level SRM research extremely difficult and, at worst, impossible

Basically says we don't need or want a governing body while we do our tests. It mentions that other people fly planes and shoot rockets all the time.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to spray our sulfuric acid up there too.

"What we were able to see from the dual-pol radar data looked similar to military chaff cases previously, but the primary difference was that the
winds weren't blowing the stuff away," Havin said.

"The releases were happening primarily below 3,300 feet [1,000 meters] above the ground and the low-level winds that afternoon were almost
nonexistent (less than 3 mph [4.8 km/h]), so the chaff was basically pluming outward over a good portion of the Huntsville metro area."

In fact, the chaff was visible on their radar for more than nine hours, and the news stories lingered even longer.

"Officially, Redstone Arsenal disclosed that it was a military test using RR-188 military chaff," Havin said, referring to aircraft used to
spread a cloud of aluminum-coated silica in the case of RR-188.

On average somewhere around 75% of RR-188 chaff is composed of Aluminum and Silica and 25% is composed of other oxides.

Boron trioxide (or diboron trioxide) is one of the oxides of boron. It is a white, glassy solid with the formula B2O3. It is almost always
found as the vitreous (amorphous) form; however, it can be crystallized after extensive annealing (that is, under prolonged heat). It is known as one
of the most difficult compounds to crystallize

.......

Boron trioxide is produced by treating borax withsulfuric acid in a fusion furnace. At temperatures above 750 °C, the molten boron oxide layer
separates out from sodium sulfate. It is then decanted, cooled and obtained in 96–97% purity.

....

Boron oxide will also form when Diborane (B2H6) reacts with oxygen in the air or trace amounts of moisture:

Toxicology
Based on mammalian median lethal dose (LD50) rating of 2,660 mg/kg body mass, boric acid is poisonous if taken internally or inhaled in large
quantities. The Thirteenth Edition of the Merck Index indicates that the LD50 of boric acid is 5.14 g/kg for oral dosages given to rats, and that 5
to 20 g/kg has produced death in adult humans. For comparison's sake, the LD50 of salt is reported to be 3.75 g/kg in rats according to the Merck
Index. But this is highly misleading, as humans have been known to die from amounts only a small fraction of the LD50. "The minimal lethal dose of
ingested boron (as boric acid) was reported to be 2–3 g in infants, 5–6 g in children, and 15–20 g in adults", according to the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. [9]

Long term exposure to boric acid may be of more concern, causing kidney damage and eventually kidney failure (see links below). Although it does not
appear to be carcinogenic, studies in dogs have reported testicular atrophy after exposure to 32 mg/kg bw/day for 90 days. This level is far lower
than the LD50.[10]

The toxic effects of diborane are primarily due to its irritant properties. Short-term exposure to diborane can cause a sensation of tightness of the
chest, shortness of breath, cough, and wheezing. These signs and symptoms can occur immediately or be delayed for up to 24 hours. Skin and eye
irritation can also occur. Studies in animals have shown that diborane causes the same type of effects observed in humans.[citation needed]
People exposed for a long time to low amounts of diborane have experienced respiratory irritation, seizures, fatigue, drowsiness, confusion, and
occasional transient tremors.

Health issues
Because of vigorous reaction of quicklime with water, quicklime causes severe irritation when inhaled or placed in contact with moist skin or eyes.
Inhalation may cause coughing, sneezing, labored breathing. It may then evolve into burns with perforation of the nasal septum, abdominal pain, nausea
and vomiting. Although quicklime is not considered a fire hazard, its reaction with water can release enough heat to ignite combustible materials.

Precautions
Magnesium oxide is easily made by burning magnesium ribbon, which produces a very bright white light, and a powdery ash. The bright flame is very hard
to extinguish and it emits a harmful intensity of UV light. Inhalation of magnesium oxide fumes can cause metal fume fever.[19] When burned in open
air, the magnesium gets hot enough to produce noticeable amounts of yellow magnesium nitride. Burning in a covered crucible, letting in just enough
air to support combustion, will reduce the burning temperature, minimizing the production of the nitride.

Are we really supposed to believe this is not bad for us to breath, drink, and land on our skin?

I'd beg to differ. 130,000 lbs a year (or 500 tons of overall chaff a year by the Air Force statement recently) is then something to multiply by how
many years running back to the 1950's some of the above links say it's been used for?

Particularly when the mention of lead not being used any longer is cited to a report of the late 90's for something happening decades prior to it?
Just how much lead by literal weight did get distributed in a relatively fine form, in an even distribution?

This type of pollution would be assumed as accidental or reckless at worst (but then, it is a conspiracy site, so who knows...) but even post-lead
years? Respiratory issues are becoming epidemic across this nation along with everything else we're seeing everyone around us starting to have issues
with. Just how is this to encounter in partial states of breaking down? That seemed to be the health question.

ANYTHING we learn has been falling across our environment and on our heads for 6 decades is a very BIG deal to my thinking.

The training isn't the issue...the sheer VOLUME of impact over LONG years is what I stop cold with. It's not Chemtrails. It's quite likely worse.
Especially as that lead, in tiny amounts x's billions of fibers with it is likely breaking down across the entire nation.

8lbs per cannister fired was an average quoted in the Air Force report above. So, the volume represented to get 500 tons of total material weight from
8lb shots? Well... I guess I just never gave any thought to how MUCH of a thing like that may be used over us. Really? Small amounts wouldn't bother
me. 60 years of all different levels in air all over the nation?

Well.. Economy of scale does unpleasant things to outcomes, in my view.

Well, it's late and math isn't my thing...but I get 500 short tons converting to roughly 1,000,000lbs. Divide that by 8 (which is a real real rough
thing, as canister size does vary) and it comes to 125,000 canisters to account for the weight the AF said it expended in one year, domestically,
during restricted operation with it.

Yup.. I'm sure that's harmless over decades. Uncle Sammy says so, and we all know Uncle is always here to help and look out for our very best
interests.

(wouldn't it be amazing to find that the symptoms people attribute to chem trails, which may be 99% or more misidentified, came from spraying of a
totally different form, never likely thought to be such a causative agent)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.